Well the last property developer who happened to be a Mayor has gone, and it’s only £8m they have to find… it’s not the mess Birmingham have found themselves inFair comment about needing to stop being a property developer.
I think we'll see councils across the country in trouble from the issues that Birmingham are dealing with.Well the last property developer who happened to be a Mayor has gone, and it’s only £8m they have to find… it’s not the mess Birmingham have found themselves in
Exactly. Starved of proper funding by government for a long time. The (select) private sector is welcome to get richer though. The sooner we have a government sharing the wealth more fairly the better.I think we'll see councils across the country in trouble from the issues that Birmingham are dealing with.
My concern would be that it seems to be relatively small amounts of money that throw local councils into trouble, which shows how much they've been starved of funding.
In fact transparency requests are usually seen as anti growth, anti jobs etc aren't they?Saw this on Look North last night plus an interview with Clarke. He said without a hint of irony there needs to be full transparency on the sales and finances.
He doesn’t say that about Dodgy Ben and his dodgy dealing.
To put it into context there was some figures that showed something like Stockton council gets £110m a year less than what they got in 2010I think we'll see councils across the country in trouble from the issues that Birmingham are dealing with.
My concern would be that it seems to be relatively small amounts of money that throw local councils into trouble, which shows how much they've been starved of funding.
That's a really weirdly worded article.
Where does this bit come from?
Some residents have questioned where the raised money would be spent and worry the timing is "short sighted", given a possible change of government could bring changes to council funding.
That’s the impression I got from the report, if M’bro council can sell some office blocks and a car park to clear some short term debt. Better than cutting services that people need?Not all the properties on the list will be sold, this isn't a fire sale, properties and land has been identified as costing the council money, so makes sense in disposing them, the only thing on the list that will likely be sold this financial year is TeesAmp, which was built with a sale in mind.
I've seen time and time again how this has been hailed as a success and the authority reaps a net income. If so, why is a profit making enterprise being sold off? I'm also certain councilors committed this wouldn't happen with the AMP. Why would MBC act as a developer for only for a private enterprise to take the reward?Not all the properties on the list will be sold, this isn't a fire sale, properties and land has been identified as costing the council money, so makes sense in disposing them, the only thing on the list that will likely be sold this financial year is TeesAmp, which was built with a sale in mind.
Well the overspend is mostly as a result in Children's services and adult social care."It comes after an overspend of more than £8.5m was forecast for the second quarter of the financial year"
A council asset review said the proposed sales could raise an estimated £33m, but would also see a reduction in long-term income of £1m a year.
So, an overspend of £8.5m for the 2nd Quarter.. with a potential long term reduction in long-term income of £1m a year.
How long does that £33m last? Halving the overspend would be a job well done.. even reduce by 75% would still be £8.5m a year.. plus the £1m from loss on income.
3rd Quarter £2.125m
4th Quarter £2.125m
1st Quarter £2.375m